Monday, May 26, 2008

And the whole world is watching...

Let’s jump right on it, shall we?

One of the greatest challenges I have faced while writing this blog is finding balance and keeping shit real.

I often fall victim to calling the right out for shit that I give some asshole of the left the benefit of the doubt on…but trust that a bitch has learned the error of my ways during the Democratic primary season.

When I heard Senator Clinton’s comments regarding why she is staying in the race citing the timing of RFK’s assassination I was disturbed. My initial reaction was that her RFK reference was in poor taste and historically inaccurate. My next reaction was that it was irresponsible - the lesson of the RFK assassination is that there are people who would do harm to those who run for office.

Do I think Senator Clinton was calling for the assassination of…oh, I can’t even write that shit.

The fact that these people have found common cause in the spin coming out of Clinton’s campaign is disturbing as hell.

Isn’t it?

Or maybe the jokes on me…again.

Mercy.

Right now I’m marveling over just how gosh darn “lucky” Obama is to have been depicted as a monkey on a t-shirt, accused of covering up a non-existent drug dealing past, assumed to be a terrorist because of his name, subject to having that asshole at FOX casually discuss lynching his wife and then threatened with assassination by Liz fucking Trotta on national television.

41 comments:

yep- the reason why i am changing to independent. i can't be associated with either party because if it wasn't so sad (for lack of a better word at this time) i might laugh at it. but i can't because they are serious as the grave. the fight to the death mentality means that there is no difference between the two parties and i won't be a party to either.

I know what you mean about the challenge of "keeping it real" all the time. It's one reason I've backed off on the day-to-day political blogging and gone back to telling stories more. It's a lot easier to keep it real when it's my own bullshit I'm exposing.

Re. registering independent (Betmo's comment above mine): I did that when Bill did the whole welfare reform crap, but I've gone back to being a Dem, largely because of the primaries.

It's crazy time in the primary now. Obama scares the crap out of the Rethugs because he's not quite as readable as the Borg Queen and didn't receive the Bush seal of approval. I think he'll pull a lot of evangelicals away. Also the Clinton wing of the party has taken a lethal hit. I'd like to see all those alleged party leaders - the super delegates- come out in support of Obama on June 3rd, but we'll see. For me it's an important day because rent control is up for grabs in CA.

Senator: despite what you may think words do mean something. They convey thoughts, they convey character, they convey inner musings.

What your words meant, on some level, is the rather bizarre notion, "I must continue here. I must continue in this pursuit of a now unreachable goal because, well, because, you know, someone might shoot Barrack Obama, and well then where would we be in the Democratic Party if our nominee has been killed?"

On some level, somewhere inside, she means this. This horrible self-justification of her nobility, "I'm here to pick-up the pieces."

What an enormous ego she has.

The problem for us is that to even give flight to this notion leads us to the darkest times in American politics. The politics of violence, the killings of John F. Kennedy, Rev. Martin Luther King and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Not to mention others like Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley. The attempted assassinations of Ronald Regan and Gerald Ford, and candidates Gov. George Wallace and Theodore Roosevelt.

I do not truly think she is hoping for this, again on some rational level, but words are windows on the soul, Senator.

Some of us have measured you in the past and have found things that have dissuaded us from you. Your politics of triangulation, your pragmatic strategy of giving them what they want, "I'll say anything to be anything to this particular group of folks". You're seeming Zelig-like chameleon attempts to blend in knocking back boiler-makers and shots, the stories of being under fire in Bosnia and gun hunting with your Daddy, threats of nuking Iran, reducing gas taxes, and drawling on in a Southern accent about how far the journey is and how untired you are to listeners at an African-American church.

You are incredibly tone-deaf to your messages and insensitive to what your messages say. You have apologized to the Kennedy's "hey sorry, your (fill in the blank) brother, father, uncle, was killed, but I have a race here to stay in in case they kill the black guy."

Where is the apology to Barrack Obama? or to his wife, Michelle?, to his children? to us the American public?

You cannot stay in this race, you cannot be Obama's VP, you cannot be a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States.

Kerrey and Shaheen are inexcusably racist. I'm sure that Clinton is embarrassed by Ferraro, and would have handed her a cup of STHU a long time ago if she could have (it's pretty difficult to silence one of your big-time fundraisers and the only other woman to run as Pres or VP).

But idiots like Liz Trotta or that troglodyte selling the Obama/banana t-shirts aren't her fault or her creation.

There's no doubt that race and racism have been key, and ugly, in this race, just as there's no doubt that sex and sexism have been key, and ugly, in this race.

Please note that with the MSM messing with Clinton at every turn, Obama's folks (notwithstanding Samantha ("she's a monster")Powers usually don't have to do much more than stand aside and look shocked, simply shocked (um, lots of them used to work for Clinton, Daschle, Kennedy, and other Dem biggies: they know exactly what they're doing). But there's nothing innocent about standing aside and not lifting a finger while one of the most liberal senators is routinely bashed for everything from her laugh to her "thick ankles (never mind the issues: what issues?), or the not-so-subtle suggestion that Clinton isn't "likeable" (i.e., she's a bitch), or Michelle Obama's suggestion that she wouldn't support Clinton if she won, or the suggestion that most of Clinton's support among white, red-state, and/or working class voters is motivated by racism. Nothing innocent at all.

And Obama's staffers and supporters certainly know how to dig in when it's opportune. Per Paul Krugman, from last week's column:

But then, it was equally absurd to portray Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that it took L.B.J.’s political skills to turn Martin Luther King’s vision into legislation as an example of politicizing race. Yet the claim that Mrs. Clinton was playing the race card, which was promoted by some Obama supporters as well as in a memo by a member of Mr. Obama’s staff, achieved wide currency.

Folks might want to go ahead and read the rest of Krugman's column, particularly Obama supporters, with all of that rhetoric re: reaching across party lines and bringing a new tone to politics. Because if you think that Hillary Clinton is your worst and most evil foe, you really need to get out more often. For my money, and for the purposes of this comment thread, these are his key observations:

The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.

So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks.

But don't listen to me when you can read Krugman's entire piece instead: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26krugman.html?em&ex=1212033600&en=c8d4e492b6192f5e&ei=5070

I believe that H.C. is cutting her own throat with all her insensitive 'Freud' slips...many people who were in her camp have been appalled by her flip/flop words. Is some of what she says scary, u betcha, for there is a lot of nuts out there looking for an excuse to take some b.s. & run with it. Sorry, I am getting sick of this & just wish O would take it, move on, and let the lady go back to the Senate with tail tucked!

Nancy said, "But there's nothing innocent about standing aside and not lifting a finger while one of the most liberal senators is routinely bashed for everything from her laugh to her "thick ankles (never mind the issues: what issues?), or the not-so-subtle suggestion that Clinton isn't "likeable" (i.e., she's a bitch), or Michelle Obama's suggestion that she wouldn't support Clinton if she won, or the suggestion that most of Clinton's support among white, red-state, and/or working class voters is motivated by racism. Nothing innocent at all."

Especially since I don't remember Hillary sticking her neck out to fight racism. In fact, she recently told the Washington Post that racism was not a factor in this campaign.

This argument basically condemns Obama for what he DOES NOT say, rather than for anything he actually does say.

And when a 1/4 of your voters say they based their vote on race, then the media (notice, Obama never said anything about this) has every right to raise questions of racism. (And before someone tries to turn this around on black folk, please note that we've been voting for white people our entire lives).

Hillary has burned a lot of bridges. That's on her. And she will have to come to grips with that. Unfortunately, she'd rather agitate her base and twist the facts to have them believe that Obama stole this nomination away from her. That's not unity.

So, while Obama praises Hillary's historic campaign as a trailblazing example for his daughters, Hillary alludes to Obama's assassination? She compares Florida and Michigan to SLAVERY. She says Obama can't pass the "Commander in Chief" test, but McCain can.

She poisons the well. She plants the seeds of doubt so that the media might repeat her talkingpoints.

It was her camp that said Latinos wouldn't vote for a black man back in January.

It was Ed Rendell (One of Hillary's chief surrogates) who said whites in PA wouldn't vote for a black person.

It's her camp that raised the idea of Obama as the affirmative action candidate (see Ferraro).

Add these to examples in Shark-Fu's post. Add those to the list of issues raised in Olbermann's special comment. Do that, and you'll get a taste of how disrespectful and divisive Hillary's been during this entire race.

No doubt, Hillary has faced her fair share of sexism. But she is not the victim she portrays herself to be. She started this race with all the money; the name recognition; the infrastructure . . . She's winning white male voters in many of these states; so much that she feels emboldened to brag about it to the USA Today.

She told people she'd have this nomination wrapped up by Feb. 5. She wasn't concerned about "letting every vote count" back then. Why the change of heart now?

And please don't compare "thick ankles" or "cackling" to assassination. Not all insults are created equal. It cheapens the severity of Obama's obstacles.

I'd rather have the media discuss my fat ankles than make jokes about my murder (Hillary's comment, Huckabee's comment, the comment on Fox News, the picture in that Georgia Newspaper. . . that's 4 assassination conversations in the past two weeks. . . something is terribly wrong).

Hillary needs to deal with her transgressions rather than point the finger at someone else. There is absolutely NO excuse for her latest comment. Forget intent, the effect of her words have potentially deadly consequences for Obama and his family. The fact that she can't see this. . . the fact that she won't acknowledge this. . . the fact that her campaign admits that they have no plans to apologize to Obama and his family, speaks volumes of her lack of character.

Bottom line: She raised the conversation this weekend. She put the idea out there. As a matter of mere decency, she should see it as her responsibility to try her best to dispel such thoughts before someone does something crazy. You don't dismiss concerns of assassination. Krugman can try to change the subject, but this is a BIG deal.

For what it's worth, Huckabee personally apologized for his comments. Why is Hillary so special? It's like she thinks she's above apologizing to Obama.

These were her words and no one else's. Yet she refuses to take responsibility for any of her actions and continues to point the finger at someone else. We already have a president who does that. . . it's not good.

"When a democratic society fails to honor the contract by which we elect our leaders in peace, and let them govern in peace, and show our approval or disapproval by keeping them or turning them out of office--when the incantation "He is not one of us" dips so far below sanity that we pretend the rules and decencies aren't in force any more--it is more than one person who is harmed. This loose way of talking and thinking of violence hardens us against real responsibility if the violent thing should happen. We are administering shocks to ourselves in advance so as not to be surprised by the actuality. But such preparations are in their very nature corrupt, and corrupting. And they are not less so when used against any person of dignity and estimation, on the public stage, than when they are leveled against an elected official."

Clinton had every advantage in this race, Obama was an unknown. And yet somehow he is winning- and while doing so he has shown the skills that are necessary to be president. He has excellent advisors, discusses issues lucidly, doesn't get confused and say stupid things, etc., etc. I can't wait for President Obama to lead our country.

If Clinton's motivation was simply to express why she's staying in the race, she should have cited another Kennedy. After all, Ted Kennedy took the nomination contest to the 1980 convention trailing Carter by a thousand delegates.

I'm willing to believe that Clinton is staying in the race because it's not mathematically over yet. I'm not willing to believe that she's the best candidate, or that she'd win if the worst happened to Obama. (After all, we all remember President Humphrey fondly, right?)

But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to overlook Obama's incidents of pandering or sexism or apparent willingness to throw feminists under the bus in order to win "swing voters" who have doubts about whether or not women should even be entitled to "some" control over our own bodies.

I started this primary season enthused, because I thought the Democrats had a two out of three chance of nominating a real progressive and a certain chance of nominating someone I could at least be content with. (Those two out of three would not include Senator Clinton, btw. I've known for a long time that she's not a real progressive.) Now I'm down to hoping the Democrats don't manage to either lose to McCain or foist another bait and switch on us the way Bill Clinton did by giving us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" instead of actual reform.

I'll give this one last, brief round, B-Serious. Most of your post just ignores or misinterprets what I've said, and it's pretty clear that you're going to believe that Clinton more or less put a bulls-eye on Obama's back no matter what she, Robert F. Kennedy, Obama, or Krugman said (they all said: poorly chosen, but an error, not a sign of vast racism or homicidal intent), or her political record, but I'll give the following points one more try for the folks in the bleachers.

1) The primary basis of my argument is in the paragraph that begins "Please note that with the MSM messing with Clinton at every turn..." --and it's not about "affirmative" anything or about "privilege." It's about how easy it is to claim the high ground when the MSM does most of your dirty work, and how standing aside and watching other people do wrong isn't really innocent at all.

2) Yup, that Clinton remark about their being no racism in this race was both foolish and infuriating. I have no idea what she or her advisers were thinking.

3) Speaking of transgressions, how long should we hang Obama out to dry for calling a female reporter "sweetie" for the (gasp!) second time in the last few months? Or should we perhaps assume that while it's a poorly chosen verbal slip, it doesn't necessarily mean he's a hardcore sexist pig?

4) The perception of Obama supporters that Clinton is a dirty fighter, or has "poisoned the well" is both inaccurate and naive. But don't believe me: wait until you see what the Republicans have cooked up for the Democratic presidential contender. (Though to tell you the truth, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to hear Obama's folks finally going 100% a-historical and claiming that the Republicans learned everything they know from Clinton.)

5) I make a point of never reading Andrew Sullivan. I always thought he was an asshat, but ever since he was caught cruising barebacking sites after making a living out of blaming gay men's "promiscuity" for HIV, I've decided I'm better off ignoring him entirely.

6) Without the support of the voters who backed Clinton, Obama can't win in November. So it's time to dust off the old charm school diploma, take a few pointers from the man himself, with all of his talk about reaching across the aisle, ease up on the racism/sexism Olympics, and get to work on some coalition building.

I totally agree with your assessment, ABB. I saw this video before it hit the TV cycle because I happened to be plugged into Twitter when the story broke, so I had a close-to-blank-slate experience, absent pundit spin. Yet I, too was worried that I was injecting some of my Obama-favoring bias into my interpretation of her RFK comments. So I watched the video again. And again. Trying to un-see what I had seen. But it was still there. The tone of voice. The turn of phrase. Her emphasis on the word "assassinated" was particularly damning, in my view. I didn't think she was wishing for disaster. But she was planning for it. Out loud. Blatantly. Maybe even deliberately trying to remind people of the danger.

It was not cool. NOT COOL. And the fact that her "apology" afterwards did not reveal any true understanding of the real reasons for the NOT COOLness of what she had said only made her attitude seem worse, in my mind.

(And before anyone jumps on me, please note that I am a second-generation feminist, would love to see a woman president, and used to have tons of respect for Hillary. My respect, which was hers to keep or lose, has been dwindling.)

BTW, this just in from the Associated Press. It appears that Obama "mistakenly referred to the wrong Nazi death camp when relating the story of a great uncle who helped liberate the camps in World War II."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/obama_nazi_camp

The article goes on to say:

"Obama's mistaken mention of the camp on Monday quickly generated Internet chatter, ranging from puzzlement to outrage. The Republican Party demanded an explanation.

"It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there's no way Obama's statement yesterday can be true," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee."

----------------------------------------------

So what should we do about Obama's "transgression"?

a) Accuse him of trumping up a false story while pandering to the Jewish voters who will be key to his election in swing states like Florida?

b) Question his entire character (what kind of a brute can't tell Auschwitz from Buchenwald?), and his commitment to Israel, and start speculating about what else he's gotten "wrong"?

c) Assume that Obama, who probably hasn't had more than 5 hours of sleep a night since January, and who is kinda stressed about proving himself to Jewish voters, slipped up and confused Buchenwald with Auschwitz during one of his 17 campaign stops for the day.

Shark-Fu, thanks for putting into words my feelings. I've just started blogging for real about a month ago; and already I've gotten so disgusted that I've had to diversify my writing. I've reviewed a musical, written about violence in our communities, talked about supporting our soldiers by getting out of this stupid Iraq war.

But when I do write about the sheer political stuff, I'm going to hit it hard.

I just wonder how much Bill is behind all the Hillary stuff? So Bill – let’s talk. Puh-lease let Hillary step aside with dignity. Okay, fair enough - when she is ready. But don’t make it more difficult than what it should be. There is no “cover up”. Except if we can call your spin since Monica and now the “Hillary working class hero” and “wrap up in June” bull. Back off Bill. You had your chance. No be a good ex-President and go talk to someone who cares. http://angryafrican.net/2008/05/27/bill-just-back-off-will-ya/

"Hillary needs to deal with her transgressions rather than point the finger at someone else. There is absolutely NO excuse for her latest comment. Forget intent, the effect of her words have potentially deadly consequences for Obama and his family. The fact that she can't see this. . . the fact that she won't acknowledge this. . . the fact that her campaign admits that they have no plans to apologize to Obama and his family, speaks volumes of her lack of character."

I agree. I also think that it demonstates that she is more like Bush than not.

She running up a debt in pursuit of an unwinnable race while playing on people's fears.

Another thing, Sen. Clinton wanted this "possibility" to become an OPEN conversation. That is why she kept bringing it up. Perhaps (wink, nudge) she raised the "spector" in her earlier interviews because she is self-absorbed and couldn't see beyond her own objective. ...Okay (wink, wink).However, her campaign's decision to resurrect the story after Sen. Obama gave them a pass is an attempt to sway superdelegateswith an unconcionable arguement.

I just love that the new tact is to blame Obama for not jumping to 'protect her' from the sexism of the media! Hillary wants to have it both ways- don't treat her special as a woman, oh wait treat her special because she's a woman! I even heard some get pissy over Obama saying she could stay in the race as long as she wants. They said he was patronizing!Now she's stirring the die-hards up and they basically want you to beg them to vote for Obama. And making demands that he put her on the ballot- what gall. If the situations were reversed and SHE'D won 11 in a row, they would be screaming for BHO to drop out and you know what? He would've gracefully. Hillary kept saying it was about putting a Democrat in the WH but she's basically told her fans they should support McCain. A REAL feminist wouldn't support a man like that. So it was just about getting HER into the WH. And like I said before, throwing hissy fits and not supporting the ACTUAL Democratic candidate because the woman you adored ran a crappy campaign-that's not democracy, that's idol worship.

B.Serious Of course she's not going to apologize to Obama and his family! She can barely say his name as it is- haven't you noticed she almost always refers to him as 'her opponent' (btw, Ms. Clinton, actually McCain is your opponent)

Everyone running for the presidency is at risk. When Benazir Bhutto was assasinated I was worried about Hillary Clinton. There are just as many sexist nuts out there are there are racist ones. Anyone who has not had even a faint glimmer of worry for any of the candidates feel free to cast the first stone. Until then, stop lying and criticizing.

One more thing, and this is a minor rant so please bear with me. But what is WITH the use of the passive voice in what's supposed to be an apology? I am so sick and tired of reading "I regret the event that happened." It just HAPPENED? And you just HAPPENED to be there with your mouth moving?

You just gave me this horrid vision of Hill running independent. Like a a pant-suit version of Nader, She takes away enough voters so that the insane portion of this country +undecideds=Bush3.

I expect Hill to campaign all the way to the comvention. Then, I hope, they'll group hug, sing Koom Bye Ya and sort it out on the Demo ticket.

FuB, I think you're a little off. Like just to the left of Ralph Nader. Who is, obviously, a pain in the ass. This campaign stuff is way, way overblown. Picking through Hills remarks while a rich pile of fresh manure is available to you daily on Major Media is just so wrong.

I fear Obama, at least for the biblical part about a slave becoming king. I've sure worked with and dealt with enough blacks who get a little power over the white guys. It's scary. But I can deal with that shit easier than I can deal with Fighting Johnny McCain.

My kid can get along with a black supervisor. He can't get along with an Iraqi bomb. Which is where McCain would be sending him. So, yeah, even though I fear injustice at the hands of black elected officials, I'd still vote for Obama if he made the dem. ticket. It probably wouldn't be Obama. It would be flunky#1187, buried in the landslide of new administrators, nursing some supersecret racial grudge for some stupid cracker who abused him as a child.

"It's about how easy it is to claim the high ground when the MSM does most of your dirty work, and how standing aside and watching other people do wrong isn't really innocent at all."

As opposed to Hillary who showed no hesitation in tag-teaming with McCain to label Obama an "elitist," after Obama's "bitter" comment?

As opposed to how Hillary jumped aboard the "Bill Ayers" wagon during that ABC debate (mind you, this was just a few minutes after Obama defended Hillary's "Bosnia" gaffe as nothing more than a media-obsessed distraction)?

As opposed to how Hillary, during that same debate, tried to link Obama's church to Hamas?

And where's there any proof to suggest that the media is "doing Obama's dirty work for him?" Is this part of the vast left-wing conspiracy?

You're beef still sounds like an anger at the fact that Obama didn't take a proactive stance to speak up against certain insults directed at Hillary. As a consequence, you label his silence as agreement.

That, to me, sounds like some type of affirmative obligation you pin on Obama, but don't hold Hillary to. As I said before . . . when has Hillary stuck her neck out to defend Obama against racism? I gave you a specific example of when Hillary flat out DENIED the existence of racism. That obligation (if it exists) should go both ways.

"Speaking of transgressions, how long should we hang Obama out to dry for calling a female reporter "sweetie" for the (gasp!) second time in the last few months?"

There is NO moral equivalency between "sweetie" and "assassination." That is an insult.

Sweetie is not the moral equivalent of "drug dealer." (as discussed in Shark-Fu's post).

Plus, Obama called that woman to personally apologize to her. Where's Hillary's apology to Obama? We're still waiting.

"4) The perception of Obama supporters that Clinton is a dirty fighter, or has "poisoned the well" is both inaccurate and naive. But don't believe me: wait until you see what the Republicans have cooked up for the Democratic presidential contender."

The poor behavior of one does not excuse the same from another. Republicans will fight dirty. That does not give Hillary a free pass to act the same way. The focus is on her. . . her actions and her words.

Bringing Republicans into it only seeks to change the subject and shirk responsibility.

Again. . . her camp said Latinos wouldn't vote for a black man. Her camp said whites wouldn't vote for a black man. Her camp says Obama can't get hard-working white voters. That's poisoning the well. That's making Obama's race a central theme of this campaign. It's telling people how they should vote based on ethnic and racial lines.

Obama has not done this with Hillary's gender. I've never heard him reference gender as an explanation to vote for or against Hillary. I've never heard him say, "You know, we have polling data that suggests men won't vote for a woman in the general election." or "There are a lot of men who won't trust a woman as Commander in Chief."

". . . ease up on the racism/sexism Olympics, and get to work on some coalition building."

Hillary engages in the "racism/sexism" Olympics every time she calls sexism the "highest glass ceiling," ignoring the fact that there are many other glass ceilings that are just as difficult (racism, homophobia, etc.).

She engages in said Olympics every time she dismisses racism as a factor in this election.

Her camp engaged in the "racism/sexism" Olympics when Ferraro said Obama was "lucky" to be a black man because we're supposed to believe life's harder for a white woman like Hillary.

She engages in the "racism/sexism" Olympics every time she doesn't recognize white privilege or the ways in which gender, race and class intersect.

And while I don't blame Hillary for the following, I think it's worth noting: Gloria Steinem played the "racism/sexism" Olympics when she wrote that article in the NY Times back in January, "Why Women are Never the Frontrunners."

She doesn't know what it's like to be a person of color. So she shouldn't take liberty to assume which group has it worse than the other. Especially not in some weird implication that the most "oppressed" holds some moral entitlement to the Presidency.

Racism and sexism are bad enough. I don't need a white woman telling me that I got it easy because I'm black. And I don't need Steinem distorting black history and struggle for political gain.

Re: "coalition building"

That "coalition" is called the Democratic party.

That "coalition" had a primary season to select its leader.

That "coalition" had two very strong candidates that fought for the nomination.

That "coalition" picked a nominee. That "coalition" picked Obama.

The question isn't whether some coalition needs to be built. The question is whether Hillary encourages her supporters to desert said "coalition" by continuing to imply that Obama stole the nomination away from her. The strength of that "coalition" relies on whether or not Hillary is willing to accept defeat (just like any other candidate) and recognize Obama as the legitimate winner.

But she doesn't do that. Instead, she goes compares MI/FL to slavery and the Civil Rights Movement (again, an insult). She bends the very rules she agreed to play by and then blames Obama for playing by said rules. She let's Bill go around talking conspiracy theories. She raises ghosts of Al Gore and the 2000 election.

This is NOT coalition building. On the contrary, this is stirring resentment amongst one's base of support. It's crafting an excuse to abandon the "coalition," so many speak of today.

Obama congratulates Hillary on every one of her victories. He refers to her by name. He praises her as a strong and capable opponent. He even praises her as an example for his daughters.

Hillary does not return the favor. What was the last good thing Hillary ever said about Obama?

For all this talk about treating Hillary with kid gloves, someone needs to tell her that she needs to play nice as well.

Everyone running for the presidency is at risk. When Benazir Bhutto was assasinated I was worried about Hillary Clinton. There are just as many sexist nuts out there are there are racist ones. Anyone who has not had even a faint glimmer of worry for any of the candidates feel free to cast the first stone. Until then, stop lying and criticizing.

If I'm not mistaken, it was Obama who had to get SS protection right after he announced he was running. And when it comes to those 3 candidates, he's the one I worry about most.

jsb16 said, "But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to overlook Obama's incidents of pandering or sexism or apparent willingness to throw feminists under the bus in order to win "swing voters" who have doubts about whether or not women should even be entitled to "some" control over our own bodies."

This is a very serious charge with NO mention of evidence to support it.

Unless, perhaps, this is a reference to Ms. Ferraro who felt entitled to belittle Obama as some lucky black guy who would never be where he is if it weren't for the color of his skin (code: affirmative action) and white guilt. In that case, Geraldine threw herself under the bus.

Although it's worth noting that even Obama said he didn't think Ferraro was a racist. . .he limited his criticism to her comments, not the person (a point Ferraro conveniently ignores today as she calls Obama a sexist on every major news outlet).

Anonymous and the whole "slave becoming a king" thing is one of the most breathtakingly raw expressions of unearned privelage that I've run across in a long time (and I drank from a keg in the auditorium where Wallace blocked the entrance).

Um, how MF-ING dare you compare random black people in positions of authority to being sent to war? Let's preach individual responsibilty, but practice group blame.

Let's see, you linked white privilage to the bible, never seen that before (eyes rolling).

Then you implied that black people (yes, PEOPLE because you didn't name someone specifically)operate out of racial resentment. I.E. a black President is going to appoint black people who will in turn harass white people. Surprise, that scenario places randon melanin challenged people at the center of the universe-- again.

WTFE.

Watch for the price of sheets to go up in the next few weeks. I am starting to see a spike in the demand.

B-Serious:That was not a reference to Ferraro. That was a reference to Obama himself, answering a question from a fundamentalist who thinks that abortion is about "thousands of innocent, sweet babies" being killed, by saying that people "believe women should have some control over their bodies and themselves."

Let me repeat that.

Obama said people "believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves."

He said this in October 2007, and to my knowledge has never clarified beyond what he said later on, which included that there should be regulation of late-term abortions, which would seem to include the banning on particular surgical procedures by a group other than the AMA. He certainly doesn't have a section on his website that addresses the abortion issue. He seems to be perfectly willing to ignore a women's issue in order to have a chance of splitting the non-racist, fundamentalist, not-already-convinced-he's-a-Muslim vote.

I want to believe that my and my daughters' right to bodily self-determination would not be at risk under an Obama administration, but I haven't seen him try to reassure me.

jsb16 said, "That was a reference to Obama himself, answering a question from a fundamentalist who thinks that abortion is about "thousands of innocent, sweet babies" being killed, by saying that people "believe women should have some control over their bodies and themselves."

You are faulting Obama for what he did not say rather for what he did say. Nowhere in your example does Obama say he would do away with or ignore a woman's right to "bodily self-determination."

In fact, Obama is on record as saying that he believes in a woman's right of choice (even in certain issues of partial or late-term abortion -- but I'll get to that later).

You also leave a lot of context out of your quote. In that same link you provided, Obama did say this (emphasis added):

"A lot of people have arrived in the view that I’ve arrived at, which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination. And I don’t think they make it lightly.

This quote shows that Obama has a view and outlines it as such: that, although he understands the moral implications of abortion, he feels that "the women involved are in the best position to make that determination. And [he doesn't] think they make it lightly."

That's a pro-choice position. Which, to me, seems no different than Hillary's position that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

Both imply compromise. People could (and probably do) take Hillary's "safe, legal and rare" stance as a pander. But I notice that you're not taking her to task.

I personally think both Obama and Clinton are taking nuanced (though politically expedient) approaches to a very sensitive issue.

You criticize Obama's stance on partial-birth abortions without mentioning Hillary's position on the same issue.

In her October 8, 2000 debate for NY Senator, Hillary Clinton said that she was not opposed to the idea of a BAN on partial birth abortions. She specifically said that she "could support" such an idea if given the right circumstances.

In that debate, her opponent, Republican, Rick Lazio, accused Hillary of not supporting a ban on partial-birth abortions. Hillary Clinton responded by saying the following:

"My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected."

In her own words, Hillary is saying that she "can support a ban on late-term abortions."

If you look at the link I provided, you'll see that, among other things, Obama voted against a partial-birth abortion ban in the IL Senate (in part because there was no safeguard for the health of the mother--like Clinton, herself, said); he views late-term abortion as a women's choice issue; and he voted AGAINST a measure that would define unborn children as eligible for SCHIP (as did Clinton).

Actually, Clinton's response seems to be par for the course as far as many pro-choice people are concerned. So does Obama's.

Quick diversion:

As you probably know, the definition of "life" is key to the abortion debate because it is directly tied to the issue of "choice."

Legally speaking, a woman's "choice" stops being unilateral once life is established. That's why pro-lifers want to define life at conception. People often dismiss this as pure religion or social conservatism when, in fact, it's actually a legal argument that they are trying to push.

As you probably know, it used to be a question of trimester analysis. It has since changed to a question that looks at the viability of the fetus(determined, in large part, by lung capacity).

The government has long held an interest in the health and well-being of the fetus after a certain stage in the pregnancy. Even Roe v. Wade recognizes such governmental interest. The private decision and right of "choice" that people often refer to focuses on the timeline before fetus viability and in matters of health and safety to and for the mother.

To the best of my knowledge, a woman doesn't have the "right" to get an abortion when she's 9 months pregnant. In theory, she could get an abortion at that point, but only if her health requires it (otherwise, the state interest in the health of the fetus would likely triumph over the woman's self-interest).

From a legal perspective, "health" is more a matter of necessity than "choice."

The reason for this is that, in late-term pregnancy, a woman's "choice" now has a competing interest. . . that of the state. The potential for a second legal interest lies at the heart of the abortion debate: the interest of the unborn (currently resolved by way of proxy in the state).

Not many question whether "life" exists at 9 months. Our medical technology allows us to see "life" (i.e., growth, response to stimuli, a heartbeat, etc.).

In fact, the Supreme Court (by way of Sandra Day O'Connor) is on record as saying that "abortion" is on a collision course with itself. This means that, as we advance further in technology, we learn more and more about the fetus and, thus, more about the capacity for life at potentially earlier and earlier stages.

Back to your post. . .

You said, "Obama said people "believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves."

You stressed the word "believe" in a way that implies you think Obama, himself, does not "believe" that women have control over their bodies. You say this when (as I've shown) there's a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.

My earlier references already demonstrate that Obama believes that women "are in the best position to make that determination [about abortion]."

It's ironic that you'd take Obama's use of the word "believe," to signal disbelief (especially when he used the word "believe" as a third person reference). That's putting words in his mouth and ideas in his head without much evidence to support your position.

For the sake of consistency, here's a larger context to your Obama quote (from the same article):

Speaking to the pro-life questioner. . . "“The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions."

It's clear that Obama is simply recognizing two competing philosophies on the abortion issue. . . two competing philosophies that often co-exist within many people who compose the mainstream view on this issue.

Obama further goes on to express his own viewpoint (which, as I've previously shown, is pro-choice). That pro-choice viewpoint is later solidified as a contrast to the pro-life questioner when Obama says,

"If you believe that life begins at conception, then I can’t change your mind."

Well, Obama wouldn't raise the idea of changing a pro-lifer's mind if he, himself, was pro-life.

Obama goes on to state a similar position as Hillary Clinton when he recognizes the desire many people have for some regulation regarding late-term abortions.

Both Obama and Clinton received a 100% rating from NARAL and, as we all know, Obama received NARAL's endorsement a couple of weeks ago. I'd say Obama has a pretty strong pro-choice position.

Regardless of whether one thinks Obama or Clinton's "pro-choice" stance is stronger (I actually think they're basically the same), it's a far cry to say Obama threatens a woman's right to bodily self-determination.

Again, both Obama and Clinton basically have the same stance on the abortion issue (I've given evidence to back this up)-- they're both pro-choice and they both see the need to reduce unwanted pregnancies as a progressive compromise on the abortion debate.

And let's not forget that McCain is pro-life.

Your conclusion that Obama panders to anti-choice voters is unwarranted. . . that is, unless you also think Hillary Clinton panders to those same voters.

If that's the case (if you see both Obama and Clinton as "pander-bears" on the issue), then I can appreciate you're principled stance.

I moderate comments so that the conversation remains on topic. I hate to have to reject one with a topic related opionion just because it also contains some shit that is only going to add another set of bricks to the wall. But I've rejected more comments to the post than published (wince) and that's just not cool.

So, please pretty please self regulate or a bitch will continue to do so for you...

Did you miss everything in my first comment other than the part you objected to?

Let's recap: I don't like Hillary Clinton. I haven't liked Hillary Clinton since she failed to get decent healthcare passed during her first stint as a resident of the White House. So quit trying to persuade me that Hillary is worse than Barack is. I'm already convinced.

However, if Obama were not running, or if Clinton were the front runner by a ten times larger margin than Obama is now, I wouldn't expect anyone to be silent about her racism, even if she didn't express it as clearly as she has in this campaign. Heck, I haven't been silent about her racism, and I think she's essentially finished in this campaign.

But none of that means that I think my right to bodily self-determination is a matter of belief. I don't believe that it's wrong to force women to carry an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to term any more than I believe that it would be wrong to force Black Americans to become bone marrow donors because there's a shortage of such donors. I know that both of these violate a fundamental human right, even if they might give life or save an already existing life.

As for who I'm voting for in November, that remains to be seen. I'm absolutely sure that I'm not voting for McCain. If there's a chance that McCain will win my state, we'realmost certainly doomed, but I'll vote (and campaign) for Obama if I think my doing so will make a difference.

But that doesn't mean that I think he's perfect in every way, or that I'm not noticing that, whatever his record says on women's rights, his website has sections for (race-based) civil rights, disability rights, immigrant concerns, rural concerns, urban concerns, seniors' concerns, the concerns of the poor, and veterans' rights, but not women's rights. Yes, women fall into many of the above categories, but everyone falls into multiple groups. Why shouldn't I question his decision not to make his position clear on his website?

FYI. . . Obama mentions other women's issues, but I just wanted to highlight a few.

Given the abundance of evidence, I felt the accusation was a little harsh. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Obama has thrown feminists under the bus or pandered to sexists or threatened a woman's right to bodily self-determination.

I respect that we'll agree to disagree on some of this stuff. But I just wanted to provide evidence/information for the public forum.

Obama's not perfect. But he seems pretty damn good. I personally think we've got a great opportunity with him.

I know Shark-Fu wants to keep this on message. But I wanted to respond because (and the following is not directed at jsb16) it seems like people are LOOKING for any and every possible excuse they can find to NOT vote for Obama. . . especially since he has the nomination on lock.

People have begun to throw out blind accusations without any facts to back them up -- done in the hopes of de-legitimizing his nomination and/or derailing his campaign.

I don't doubt that there is a lot of constructive criticism. I don't agree with Obama on everything either (e.g., wish he had stronger stances on affirmative action and gay marriage).

But I'm also aware of the fact that we're in the "sour grapes" mode of this campaign. And some have begun to throw any accusation at the wall to see if it sticks.

That's a shame because I feel that, if we play our cards right, we've got a real opportunity for a paradigm shift in this country.

And Shark-Fu. . . I'm sure you get this a lot, but you've got a great blog. Truly impressive.